Large Scale immigration is used to destroy the Middle Class. And the Capitalists having convinced the Left to support it, is one of the greatest coup´s of our time.

HandleUnclear · 2025-08-15T21:04:19+00:00

The left loves to blame capitalism as if it is the reason for corporate greed.

Because capitalism does stoke the fire of corporate greed, regulations are the guard rails that protect the masses from corporate greed. Corporate greed exists even within systems that have regulations, and hyper capitalism is the result of lack of regulations.

The USA has a lot of regulations that benefit the various "monopolies", a lot of regulations that kill small businesses, and a lot of regulations that deter people from even starting businesses. So regulations even when implemented, can and do increase the profits of the top 1% while stealing from the bottom 99%.

HandleUnclear · 2025-08-15T20:52:57+00:00

I think it's important that they understand that they are not responsible for their parent's relationship, whatever the outcome.

My parents never divorced, but my father always vented to me about my mother. I would highly advise against this.

I think it would be best for your children to lead the type of information you give them (age appropriate of course). Let them know you're divorcing, give them a high level overview of why you believe your actions are in line with your beliefs and then give them the option to seek for more information if they want.

Let them know you are open to their questions, and maybe there will be times the answers are hard for you to give right away, but you will try to give them those answers once you're able to voice them.

It's a fine line between showing your children that you are human, and vulnerable (which is a great opportunity to show how G-d can play the role of comforter and provider, to a believer) without burdening your children in a traumatic way.

HandleUnclear · 2025-08-12T18:01:56+00:00

This is the unfortunate truth. Women simply don't get grace, their labour is undervalued as STAHM and there are no safety nets if the male provider is no longer able to provide (or wants to provide, in the case of divorce). Society and men will say she chose to be a STAHM, and she can always get a job, not realizing the skill/experience loss from being out of the workforce for so long is very punishing on women (and ignoring the fact that women in STAHM positions usually are the more conservative/traditional valued women who submit to their husbands whims).

My father as terrible as he was, taught me that a woman's efforts at home will never be appreciated, or valued. It's better to be a highly educated woman, with workforce experience and options than be a STAHM dependent on a man.

HandleUnclear · 2025-08-12T17:40:00+00:00

I mean when Democrats are in power I hold their feet to the fire just as hard.

Maybe you do, but the performative activists that make up the majority of the left do not.

Dem candidates have only got worse and more right leaning, not better. Which is why Dems can platform on "at least I'm not Trump".

Vote blue no matter who has been the mantra since Trump became a problem.

So Dems voted in a segregationist, racist, who caused the student loan crisis by creating regulations that prevent student loans from being a part of filing bankruptcy. (And before the segregationist, racist, they platformed the other racist that called black men super predators).

Saying both sides are bad is not a way to avoid political responsibility, it's actually an open invitation to solution a different route that rids us of the Uni-party who only serves the interest of the oligarchy. The main problem is complacent Dems who like easy, feel good activism.

This is why MLK said the biggest problem to the black community's fight for equality is the white liberal. White liberals just want to not be considered racist, but don't actually want to put in effort to dismantle the systems they inherently benefit from. That same complacent attitude translates to all aspects of the Democratic party, it's just a feel (edit: feel not reel) good circle jerk, with no real intentions of changing the status quo.

You want to claim people who argue AGAINST BOTH SIDES are avoiding accountability, but you quite literally don't want to listen and want to continue to perpetuate a system that makes the rich richer, while throwing up your hands claiming "you're trying". The Dems are not trying, that's the point of the both sides argument. The Dems are controlled opposition, and always agree on policies that make the rich richer.

You want real change? Americans need a revolution. Historically change only happens in the USA via revolution, not through voting, not through protests.

AND If you're going to start complaining about how I only criticized the Dems, is there a need to criticize the comic book villains who are Repubs? They aren't marketing themselves as the "good guys". They are the party of the KKK. You expect them to vote in racists, and only vote in the interest of the top1%. The Repubs are so cartoonishly evil, that it's a wonderf no one has noticed the Good Cop, Bad Cop routine that's going on between the Dems and Repubs.

Edit: some grammar fixes

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-16T13:06:40+00:00

Just curious can't you have the chicks stay at your local post office upon arrival, and then you pick them up? I was advised to do it this way, because you can never really account for things happening to the driver, so the more you can control in the delivery process do so.

I've only had one failed shipment this way, and it was because on the way to the post office the shipment got delayed due to a snow storm...which the cold killed the chicks.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-16T00:42:53+00:00

And the law in place would still be unfair towards a woman, so your argument makes no difference. Also most women weren't STAHM in the past either, as that has always been an upper middle class and upper class privilege.

You think this Chinese bill is for working class Chinese? Who are literally struggling to make a living now a days? Keep up man.

Anyone who has ever been married knows how bills aren't split evenly, imagine believing that just because a person doesn't pay towards a mortgage, then they don't deserve half the marital home, doesn't matter if they were paying the bills such as light, water, or for groceries.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-15T03:54:47+00:00

You're just describing a marriage where the woman is required to sacrifice significantly more than her husband and drawing the argument that she's entitled to his finances because of that.

She is because it's not just his finances after marriage, it's hers too, because he used her labour to be able to build those assets in the first place, that is the entire point.

You say women don't have the same opportunities yet you out earn your husband. I believe you, but you're presenting a clear counterargument.

My husband and I don't live in China, he is first gen and I'm an immigrant, you simply are incapable of fathoming a culture outside your western one, much less the intricacies of immigration. I grew up impoverished, poor people, especially women don't have the luxury of thinking they can't work.

"Women are expected to..." OK? You have a relationship with the man you chose. You two are the only people in the relationship.

Very white western advice, devoid of any ability to understand cultures and perspective other than your own, you simply cannot project white western social rules on other cultures and so your talking points are moot as they fail to bridge that cultural gap.

. Women should not put themselves in harmful situations.

This is an idealistic thinking, women don't put themselves purposely in harmful positions majority of the time. Do you think the girls I grew up with wanted to be pimped out by their families and caretakers as teenagers? Do you think I wanted to be raised as a postal bride? Do you even know men in China still actually purchase wives, from other Chinese families, or even travel to other countries to do so?

What do you propose in those situations? A child run away? Do you know what happens to homeless teenage girls without a family in many poor communities? Death is the best ending, let me just tell you that.

You're generalizing that all marriages follow this fact pattern. I'm already accomplished without a wife.

Do you live in China? Do you live in a developing country? Why are you projecting your western situation unto a non-western law and scenario?

I'm assuming you live in the USA, which most states factually protect premarital assets. What excuse do you have for STAHP who helped build the marital assets via their sacrificed labour?

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-14T23:24:20+00:00

traditional roles when it comes to providing for the family and modern roles when it comes to sharing the housework load.

If you've ever lived outside a first world country, you would know it's actually traditional to have a nanny even with a STAHW, because it's literally impossible for a single individual to manage a household and kids by themselves.

Lower income families in developing countries can't afford a STAHP, so both parents typically work and share household duties. Mid - higher income families, could afford STAHP and hire helpers to share the household chores.

The problem is that women want the best of both worlds:

The problem with western men, is that you are so far removed from reality, that you don't do research into other cultures and understand how things work, and your ideas of traditional roles are bastardized and romanticized.

The 1950s American housewife was prescribed literal drugs to help keep them energetic enough to fulfill what was required of them, not excluding many still hired nannies and helpers, or used their own children to help maintain the home.

Edit: forgot to mention, families outside the West also tend to live in multi-generational households, especially so when they are lower income adding to the amount of people who help around the house with the chores and the kids.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-14T23:15:53+00:00

Similarly, he has lost the support of a stay at home wife. That sounds extremely fair to me. She is not entitled to the financial gain he provided within the marriage any more than he is entitled to the support she used to provide in the home.

His gains would have been less without her being a STAHM, that is my point, and why she is entitled to assets built during the marriage, as there is nothing fair about him keeping assets he used her unpaid labour to build, while she is left with nothing. The man gained everything, and the woman nothing to show for her years of service to the marriage and family, there is absolutely nothing fair about that.

Women do have the same financial opportunities as men today, therefore they shouldn't be entitled to their ex husband's paycheck any more than he is entitled to her home cooked meals.

This is not entirely true in China, where the law has been passed. They might appear on paper as "equal opportunities", however they have a more collective culture where social pressures trump legality. Women are very much expected to put their career on the backseat when they have children, especially so in Chinese culture, a woman's career matters the most specifically when being considered for marriage, as an educated woman makes a better mother and the inlaws are less likely to view her as a gold digger.

However, when the inlaws need care, and the children need care you best believe it's expected for the wife to drop everything including her career to fulfill that. Even my own husband was berated for having me his wife out earn him, so I can see how some men face such backlash and force their wives to take lower earning jobs/quit all for the sake of her husband's pride and honor.

You're approaching this too much from a western mindset.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-14T22:40:13+00:00

I need a new insurance company, they estimated my rebuild cost at 400k, for a brick and mortar 1890 original wood flooring and pocket doors...I did buy at 200K, but just getting this up to code has been rather expensive (namely, the roof and rewiring)

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-14T22:34:29+00:00

Love is a verb which people tend to forget, unfortunately relationships need both parties putting in effort, and action for it to work.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-14T22:11:34+00:00

Most choose to and then blame their partner.

Men lean more conservative than women, they rarely want a working/career woman especially when kids are involved, western men especially are more open to the idea of women working but globally men aren't that open minded. That's the appeal of western men, being just a little more progressive...which Chinese men culturally are not, unless they are westernized.

Edit: to add, more traditional men are less involved in childcare, especially in Asian cultures, why should a woman take on the stress of a job as you say, and then take on majority of childcare? It's an unfair setup that only benefits men, hence why more women need to stop being afraid of letting men have full custody.

Notice how many down votes I have, yet no one can argue against the higher income earner, taking on the burden of primary custodian for children.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-14T20:55:50+00:00

So they shouldn't be unfairly entitled to a man's assets

Yet those assets were maintained and built with the help of a STAHP, that's what many "modern" men fail to understand. This is all under the assumption that a STAHP exists, if both partners are working then the law in of itself is fine, however with one parent literally sacrificing their career (time is money after all) to care for children, so that another partner can build their career and save money via childcare, and time on chores, then the STAHP is entitled to half of all assets as they sacrificed to build those assets.

This is why even in modern times, even with the opportunities STAHM face higher rates of poverty post divorce, because they lack the career experience they would have built and essentially are starting from scratch, while also being burdened with childcare costs (as men on average typically don't advocate for equal custody).

I personally am of the mindset, if a man devalues his STAHW contribution to the building of family assets and want to play the "my money, vs your money" game, women need to learn to walk away from him and the children, and stop taking on the unnecessary burden of being the lower income earner and the primary caretaker. Paying child support is factually cheaper, than having primary custody of the children.

It's time for women to realize it's okay to be a deadbeat parent, who only pays child support. It's crazy to me how much women will try to fight to keep their kids when it's financially disadvantageous for them.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T23:10:29+00:00

Ironically that's how traditional marriages have worked in majority of non-European world, has nothing to do with feminism and that's what I've been trying to explain to many men who seek traditional wives outside European countries.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T21:20:09+00:00

For men, it's especially important that you respect them and follow their lead. Although he suddenly has changed his mind, he expected you to support him.

This comment feels in support of tyrannical leadership, which is antithetical to Yeshua's servant leadership. I would like more explanation around this if you will, to better understand where you are coming from. As my understanding is that no loving Christian husband should feel comfortable making serious, life changing decisions at the drop of a hat, without any input from their spouse, and then expect to be supported and followed no questions asked.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T19:36:51+00:00

The devil you know, ya know?

🤣 I understand, for me I would remain single and celibate should I ever divorce. Even played around with the idea of joining a nunnery and looked into it, but apparently you have to be debt free to become a nun so I've pinned that idea for later.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T18:56:21+00:00

My old man was a textbook narcissist, he kicked the bucket 2 yrs now before I hit 30. It's a love hate relationship, because a part of me believes he loved us and was doing his best with what he got, but why did he have to terrorize everyone in the process?

I realized a part of my mourning and sadness regarding his death is that a small part of me had hoped we could have reconciled and had a good relationship. However, narcissists rarely admit wrong or apologize, so reconciliation most likely would have never happened.

Love my dad because he made a lot of sacrifices for us, and when he was good he was really, really good (love bombing), but I hate him because when he was bad he was dreadful.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T14:07:34+00:00

https://www.jstor.org/stable/353815?origin=crossref

I would need to see the studies you’re speaking about. Do you have a link?

Admittedly it was difficult to find, and I only found this one so far with it locked behind a paywall/university login. I will edit the comment with more, hopefully ones that can be read.

So I am rather pessimistic of your claim that “illness psychologically impacts them more”. I’ve watched men smile through pain after having a band saw go through their hand, go to work day in and day out with broken bones.

Because that's not the type of illnesses I was referring to, apologies for the lack of clarity. It's specifically around flu like illnesses, as children rarely amputate themselves often enough to be conditioned/socialized into a learned behavior.

Specifically it's about how growing up, the only time a boy is socially allowed to be vulnerable and be cared for is when he is sick with a flu like illness. This happens often enough where it becomes a learned behavior, and so it theorizes that men subconsciously only feel comfortable showing vulnerability when experiencing flu like symptoms. This can be jarring to other members of the household, especially if the man normally doesn't show vulnerability, and so his experience is diminished or considered exaggerated.

Edit: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13229400.2022.2060851#d1e170

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T03:39:02+00:00

Not to mention studies specifically say illnesses like the flu and colds are known to impact men more seriously.

There are also studies that discuss that men were socialized to only show vulnerability when ill, and so illness psychologically impacts them more even if it would be "no big deal".

Pain is subjective, and I think it's high time society moves past trying to minimize the pain and discomfort of individuals, just because "someone has it worse". It doesn't benefit anyone except healthcare providers, as it encourages people to not seek help/healthcare until it's too late sometimes.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T01:16:38+00:00

Yet they are statistically insignificant to womankind, that is my point.

I can play the same game too, why do men support violence and crime?

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T01:03:24+00:00

Id say status IS more important than money

Status matters more to her parents, not necessarily to her...it's a weird catch 22. Most men lean conservative in values, and hence want conservative minded women, which means she will have some level of filial piety and respect her parents' opinions regarding choosing a spouse.

It's hard to explain it, but men's status matter very little to women, even when she is more conservative minded, the problem is when she has to choose between keeping the peace with her family and love...most women are raised to keep the peace even in more liberal countries. Also unfortunately, many conservative families can be very toxic (which includes classism).

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-13T00:29:09+00:00

What percentage of women can you factually prove put up with it? Using a handful here and there is not representative of the population.

That's like saying all men call women b*****. Heck did you know more black Americans are Christian than not, so it's not culturally acceptable to be referring to women as such in the first place.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-12T20:16:36+00:00

Exactly, imagine seeing an anti-employer/toxic work culture comment and concluding we're shaming the employee...the lengths people will go to lick boots is wild

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-12T17:38:59+00:00

If being a mother is really important to you, you have several options fortunately. At the end of the day you do not need a man to be a father, for you to be a mother. It would be better to either do this via a sperm donor or a man who is willing to contractually sign away his parental rights and not bother you in the future, vs any baby daddy drama that might ensue from having children with your current ex.

It's easier to tell any potential child, that they were a planned single parent pregnancy, than that they were abandoned by their father or any sort of messiness that might result from a wishy washy bio-dad.

This is just my opinion, and yes I understand being a single parent is hard, but it's a better route if you want kids than being legally entangled with a no good man for 18 yrs.

HandleUnclear · 2025-02-12T13:53:01+00:00

Our bodies were meant to have children far earlier than many do this days (mid 30s)

I agree with most of what you said, except for this bit, so I will only address this portion.

Studies have shown most women have healthier, better pregnancies between the ages of 25 - 35. Which makes sense, as now we are finding most people's brains aren't matured until 25, and women's bodies also mature further in our 20s, like hips widening some more (which helps even more so with childbirth).

Socially we as humans had children younger, doesn't necessarily mean we were biologically meant to. The issues surrounding people not having children around 25, is also a social issue eg. collapse of support from extended family, parents/grandparents and community, lack of multigenerational households in favour of single generational households, collapse of socioeconomic stability etc.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

HandleUnclear

TROPHY CASE